A REMAKE should be made - The Devils (1971) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] imbluzclooby 15 years ago

REMAKE REMAKE REMAKE

Stop pretending!

REEEEEMMMMAAAAKKKEE

reply

[–] foxonthedocks 15 years ago

The historical facts, Huxley's book and Whiting's play don't belong to Russell.
I understand Russell had some issues securing the rights to Huxley's book, but if he managed it back in the '70s, there's no reason why another director couldn't have a go.

It might be interesting to see a more "straight" version of Whiting's play, although I can fully understand why Russell cut it so ruthlessly.

How about a Dogme version of Huxley's book? Thinking of Breaking the Waves and Antichrist, I'm sure Lars Von Trier's take on the material would be... interesting.

No idea who would play the leads, though. Clive Owen is horrible in period drama - did anyone see King Arthur? Yuck. Going back to Breaking the Waves, Emily Watson would be effective as Jeanne; excellent though Vanessa Redgrave was, the towering thesp was slightly miscast as the mother superior who, according to Huxley, was practically a dwarf.

reply

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 15 years ago

It would be interesting, though this film is a masterpiece and doesn't NEED a reworking. But, like you said, Huxley's book is not exclusive property of Ken Russell. Anyone can make an adaptation. I think someone like Daniel Day-Lewis would do the role of Grandier justice. As for Jeanne, that's a tough one. I doubt any mainstream actress would tackle the role, and if they did, then more power to them. Chloë Sevigny would be interesting as Jeanne, but I don't know if I say that out of genuinity or because she's one of my favorite actresses, like, ever. She could definitely pull it off though, she's got the craft. Yeah, Day-Lewis and Sevigny— only in my dreams.

reply

[–] bstephens21 15 years ago

There is always Mother Joan of the Angels

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055153/

reply

[–] catheter1st 15 years ago

No, a remake of The Devils most certainly should not be made! This film is perfect as it is(in uncut form), and any remake would simply be a watered down version of it, and would pale in comparison to the original.

There is not a director working today that has the audacity that Russell had when he made this flick. I am amazed he got the film financed in the first place.

reply

[–] imbluzclooby 15 years ago

Why not give a new director a chance? This movie wasn't as groundbreaking as many claim. Sure, Russell took some chances and moral risks, but I think someone today can do a good job if they put their mind to it and are faithful to Huxley's book.

reply

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 15 years ago

I agree. A remake of this film COULD be great. It would still be controversial, but perhaps not AS controversial as it was in 1971; maybe, just maybe, it would be less reviled and more appreciated by modern audiences (serious moviegoers, that is).

But, honestly, put in the hands of a good director, a remake on this story has insurmountable potential. Russell's film is wonderful, but I still think it could be re-done very tastefully and faithful to the book.

I think we need more controversial films anyway; they get people talking, and when people are talking, they're thinking. Imagine religious groups protesting at the cinemas; it'd be so much fun.

reply

[–] dalldorfw 10 years ago

Well, for *beep* sake, if not this than at least remake something! There hasn't been a remake announced within the last 2 minutes! We're falling behind!

reply

[–] cult_classics 15 years ago

A remake is more likely than a proper release of Russell's film, but it would no doubt be without any ambiguity and probably more resmble The Crucible than the source materials.

There are some things i would have liked seen included in the original film though, like the swarm of pidgeons flying into Grandier's inferno and that ungodly large horsefly that landed on Father Barre's Rites of Exorcism book.

That and almost everything that happened after the burning, including Jeanne's "abortion", the possessions of Father Surin and Father Tranquille, Surin's suicide attempt etc. In fact Father Surin, Father Tranquille and Father Lactance would make for some great broader scope roles to help balance Barre's fanaticism. I think this movie is a masterpiece and ranks in my all-time top 10, but it's not so inclusive of all the facts. Not that i want any remake.
Especially considering that Hollywood would likely today cater to the anti-religious folk just see the other side squirm.

Somebody had a great time revisioning Stephen King's The Mist story for seemingly that very reason. Changing Mrs. Carmody from a spellcasting, borderline soothsaying witch to a linear religionist, also bringing in the military against the original story itself scoffing at the idea.

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

reply

[–] imbluzclooby 15 years ago

I think this film could be faithful to the book without detracting from all the violence and disturbing images. The one area of criticism that Russell's version had was that critics felt he was being more gratuitous without having an artistic reason for employing the gratuitous scenes and images.

I think a talented director could borrow some ideas from Russell's version and even take matters a step further. Bump it up a notch. Make the experience more exploratory in order to make an indictment against religion used for political ends.

My choices would be Ridley Scott, Brian DePalma or even Scorcese.

reply

[–] foxonthedocks 15 years ago

Jeanne's abortion?! No mention of that in my copy of Huxley's book. Not that I can remember at the mo.

reply

[–] cult_classics 15 years ago

I'm not sure it's called an "abortion" in the book, but one of the characters/fathers creates a concoction that if i remember right she is to apply on her stomach to allegedly cure her so called pregnancy. It happens after Grandier is burned.
I don't recall her actually applying whatever it was that was whipped up, but it does go into detail about her alleged pregnancy and what should be done in this case. Do you remember that part? Because admittedly i'm hazy on the details as well and my book is currently on loan (overdue) to a friend of mine.

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

reply

[–] foxonthedocks 15 years ago

Jeanne had symptoms of false pregnancy; it's mentioned briefly in the film. I'll have to dig my copy of Huxley out of the garage :) !

reply

[–] cult_classics 14 years ago

What i was talking about is what transpires post-Grandier's burning.
There is quite a bit of the tail-end of Huxley's account that was left out of the film.
I know what i mentioned originally, is in fact in the book though. I just don't remember all the particulars.

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

Sorry Blackrider , It will never happen and it shouldn't.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] foxonthedocks 14 years ago

Michael Nyman?!?!? No! No! A thousand times no! Not unless the remake is going to be a cool, distanced Peter Greenaway-like puzzle piece, of course.

reply

[–] AssetsonFire 13 years ago

Grandier - Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. He could do his eyebrow raise during the climax in order to express the epic pain of being cremated (and accurately depict the appearance of melting skin, sans CGI).

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachlen48 13 years ago

Does anyone here remember how Richelieu died. It was a well deserving death for such an evil power hungry monster. Oh, and a re-make is out of the question.

reply

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

A pg-13 rated remake?

reply

[–] activista 9 years ago

Please--this flick was powerful and whacked the hell out and groundbreaking it its time---no point in remaking it, it's fine just the way it is. I'm still surprised that's there's been no Criterion release of the film, as it definitely deserves one because of its historical, political, and religious significance.

reply

[–] Aunt-Peg 9 years ago

There is no Criterion release because Warners will not currently allow the release of the film in any form in the U.S.

reply

[–] Kompressor_Fan 9 years ago

Although I'm not fond of this movie, to say the least, what is their reasoning? Sure....I think it's disgusting trash, but one man's disgusting trash is another man's art. I say let the individual be the judge, and it's not like Ken Russell doesn't have a cult following.

I've noticed that Liztomania has never gotten a proper DVD or Blu-ray release, either (I don't think it ever even got a VHS release, although I know The Devils did, because that is how I came to see The Devils was on VHS.)

 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 

reply

[–] Jones70 (6534) 3 years ago

OMG that would be awesome!

reply